Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
STEVEN STAMBAUGH,
Plaintiff,
No. 2008-SU-4141-07
versus
Defendants.
Come now defendants James and Ann Shafer (the “Shafers”), by and through their
counsel, CGA Law Firm, and, in support of their preliminary objections to plaintiff’s amended
complaint, file the following memorandum of law.
I. Introduction
Steven D. Stambaugh, Esq. brings this against his neighbors, Jim and Ann Shafer seeking
both damages and injunctive relief in connection with the flow of storm water from the Shafers’
high ground to his lower ground. The flow issues of which Stambaugh complains have never
before been an issue on the properties and only became an issue after Stambaugh removed all
vegetation from the border of the two properties and replaced it with a vast bed of mulch.
In his amended complaint, Stambaugh offers detailed allegations regarding the quality
and quantity of storm water that recently flowed on and from the Shafers’ property. Stambaugh
also makes extensive allegations concerning the various neighborly steps the Shafers took—i.e.,
steps taken without regard to the nature of their legal obligations—to ameliorate Stambaugh’s
expressed concerns. Indeed, Stambaugh concedes the effectiveness of steps the Shafers took in
response to his concerns. See Amended Complaint at ¶ 14. Nevertheless, Stambaugh remains
{00348090/1}
The Shafers’ preliminary objections necessarily assume the truth of all facts set forth in
Stambaugh’s amended complaint. Even accepting Stambaugh’s allegations as true, Stambaugh’s
complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted (see Section II.A, infra), seeks
relief that is unavailable (see Section II.B, infra), fails adequately to specify his monetary
damages (see Section II.C, infra), and depends on inadmissible evidence of settlement
negotiations between the parties (see Section II.D, infra). The Shafers’ preliminary objections
should be sustained and Stambaugh’s amended complaint dismissed in its entirety.
II. Argument
A. Stambaugh’s Complaint Fails to State a Claim upon
Which Relief May Be Granted
Despite its extensive allegations, Stambaugh’s amended complaint fails to state any claim
upon which this Court could grant relief even if Stambaugh could prove each and every one of
the allegations he offers. Defendants’ principle preliminary objection, then, is in the nature of
demurrer. A demurrer admits every well-pleaded material fact set forth in the pleadings to which
it is addressed as well as all reasonably-deducible inferences, but not conclusions of law. In
order to sustain a demurrer, the Court must find that the law will not afford plaintiff any recovery
on the strength of the pleaded facts. See, e.g., National Recovery Systems v. Frebraro, 430 A.2d
686 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981). The standard is whether the complaint states a claim for relief under
any theory of law. Morley v. Gory, 814 A.2d 762 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). Here, Stambaugh’s
as a result of the upper landowner’s use of his property is not actionable.” Olexa v. De Sales
Univ., 78 Pa. D. & C. 4th 171, 186 (Lehigh County, Dec. 13, 2005).
{00348090/1} 2
As an initial matter, it is well established that, “being the owners of the upper land, [the
Shafers] have the right to have the water flowing from their land discharged in a natural water
course upon the lower (plaintiff’s) land.” Beals v. Robertson, 48 A.2d 56, 57 (Pa. Super. Ct.
1946) (parenthetical in original). More precisely, “[b]ecause water is descendible by nature, the
owner of a dominant or superior heritage has an easement in the servient or inferior tenement for
the discharge of all waters which by nature rise in or flow or fall upon the superior.” Sweigart v.
Burkholder, 36 A.2d 181, 183 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1944).
Because the Shafers, as owners of the high ground, enjoy the right to natural discharge of
storm waters across lower land, Stambaugh must, in order to prevail, allege and prove that the
Shafers somehow altered the flow of waters from their natural course. Stambaugh, however,
offers no allegations regarding the natural and historic flow of waters on and from the Shafers’
property, and no allegations regarding the manner in which that flow now differs from its natural
and historic character. Because he has not pleaded facts that, when taken as true, establish any
change to the natural and historical flow of waters, let alone an actionable change, the Shafers’
right of discharge prevails and Stambaugh’s amended complaint must be dismissed.
Even if, however, Stambaugh pleaded facts sufficient to establish that the flow of waters
on and from the Shafers’ property is today different in quantity or quality than it had been in the
past, an altered flow of waters is, while essential to his claim, not itself sufficient to entitle
Stambaugh to any relief. In addition to establishing an alteration to the natural flow of waters
(which, as noted, he does not plead), Stambaugh must further allege facts sufficient to establish
that the flow was altered by impermissible means. In other words, Stambaugh must allege an
actionable alteration.
Before considering what types of circumstances might be actionable in terms of water
flow visited upon the lower land, it is important to appreciate the nature and scope of the
property rights attaching to the high land. In terms of water flow, the law has long held that the
owner of higher land “may make improvements upon his own land . . . grade it and build upon it,
without liability for any incidental effect upon an adjoining property even though there may
{00348090/1} 3
result some additional flow of surface water thereon.” Rau v. Wilden Acres, Inc., 103 A.2d 422,
423 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1954). As the Superior Court more recently reiterated:
[N]ot only is an owner of higher land under no liability for
damages to an owner of lower land caused by water which
naturally flows from the one level to the other, but he can . . .
improve his land by regrading it or erecting buildings thereon,
without legal responsibility for any consequent diversion of surface
waters from his property to that of adjoining owners, it being
recognized that changes or alterations in the surface may be
essential to the enjoyment of his property.
Laform v. Bethlehem Township, 499 A.2d 1373, 1378 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985) (emphasis added)
{00348090/1} 4
Shafers effected an alteration through actionable means. For both reasons, Stambaugh’s
amended complaint fails, as a matter of law, to allege facts sufficient to entitle him to relief.
Accordingly, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(4), defendants
demur on the basis that, under governing law, the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Because Stambaugh fails to allege facts that, if proven, would
support relief, the amended complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.
Jefferson Hill Sch. Dist., 669 A.2d 1084, 1086 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995) (“final injunction is
warranted if no adequate remedy at law exists for a legal wrong”). The applicable rule is but one
concrete consequence of the venerable maxim that “where injury can be redressed in an action at
law equity will not interfere.” Berkey v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 69 A. 329, 331 (Pa.
1908). Here, as evidenced by the damages claims included within the amended complaint, the
law provides an ample remedy in the event Stambaugh incurs a future injury associated with
failure of the admitted remedy.
{00348090/1} 5
injunction; the plaintiff must make out a case [of] clearly established danger and not mere
apprehension of damages.” Berkey, 69 A. at 331 (Pa. 1908) (emphasis added). Indeed, “[i]f the
injury be doubtful, eventual, or contingent, equity will not grant relief[.] The fact that it might
possibly work injury is not sufficient. Moore v. Keystone Macaroni Mfg. Co., 82 Pa. D. & C.
412, 417 (Lebanon County, January 26, 1952); see also Locust Club v. Hotel & Club Employees’
Union 155 A.2d 27, 32 (Pa. 1959) (“injunction will not issue in the absence of a clear right
thereto); Straup v. Times Herald, 423 A.2d 713 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980) (same) (overruled on other
grounds by Kreutzer v. Monterey County Herald Co., 747 A.2d 358 (Pa. 2000). Here,
Stambaugh’s request for injunctive relief is exclusive premised on anticipation of future injury
that is doubtful, eventual, and contingent. See Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 16 (alleging that the
remedy may “eventually fail”); 17 (alleging that the Shafers or their successors may “fail to
properly maintain” the remedy); 23 (“potential ongoing and continuing nature of the harm”).
Although general principles governing the availability of injunctive relief are sufficient to
foreclose its availability in this case, the principles specifically applicable to the water flow
issues in this case establish that an injunction may not issue where, as here, “the conditions
complained of by plaintiff [have] been remedied.” Chamberlin v. Ciaffoni, 96 A.2d 140, 141
(Pa. Super Ct. 1953) (refusing to enjoin landowner from water discharge where evidence
established that the problem was remedied by controls). In Chamberlin, the defendant
established at trial that the water flow issues that led plaintiff to seek injunctive relief had been
remedied. Here, however, there is no need for the Shafers to prove the fact of remedy at trial.
Because Stambaugh alleges the fact of remedy in his amended complaint, the issue may be fully
resolved at the preliminary objection stage.
Accordingly, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(4), defendants
demur to Stambaugh’s demand for injunctive relief on the basis that, under governing law,
injunctive relief is unavailable on the strength of the facts set forth in the amended complaint.
Because Stambaugh pleads facts establishing that his water flow concerns, whether actionable or
{00348090/1} 6
not, have been remedied, the requests for injunctive relief in Counts I and II of the amended
complaint should be dismissed and/or stricken. See Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 18-26.
1. Compensatory/General Damages
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(f) states that “[a]verments of time, place and
items of special damage shall be specifically stated.” Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019(f). As noted above, in
his Count I demand for compensatory damages, Stambaugh fails to plead the number of
compensable events, the dates on which they occurred, or the time he devoted thereto. The same
is true with regard to Stambaugh’s Count II demand for general damages, which, being by
definition “damages [for] the usual and ordinary consequences of the wrong,” are presumed to be
{00348090/1} 7
such, both the Count I demand for compensatory damages and the Count II demand for general
damages fail for lack of specificity under Rule 1019(f) and must be stricken and/or dismissed.
Stambaugh’s demands for compensatory and general damages fail because they are not
pleaded with the requisite “degree of particularity to which the facts of the case are reasonably
susceptible [and which would] enable the [Shafers] intelligently to prepare for trial.” Snyder v.
The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, 1963 Pa. D. & C. 2d 128 (Dauphin County, Nov.
18, 1963). As a matter of law, “[g]eneral allegations of indebtedness, lumping charges and gross
sums intended to cover and include different kinds of loss and damages, are not sufficient; the
complaint should, whenever possible, show how the items of damage claimed are ascertained.”
Id. (emphasis added).
Here, Stambaugh does not identify the means according to which compensatory and
general damages are to be calculated, let alone identify the amount of such damages. Insofar as
the damages amount is a mere calculation involving the number of compensable events, the time
dedicated to each event, and the rate applicable thereto—facts that lie within Stambaugh’s
exclusive knowledge—the amount of damages is “reasonably susceptible” to being articulated
with specificity at this stage. Absent such information, the Shafers are unable “intelligently to
prepare for trial,” e.g., unable to determine the extent to which they need invest in a defense to
Stambaugh’s demands for compensatory and general damages, in addition to a defense to the
more onerous requests for injunctive relief. The defense investment would, for example, be
considerably lower if Stambaugh seeks recovery for labor at the rate a local teenager would
charge to provide mulch cleanup than it would be in the event Stambaugh seeks to recover his
personal attorneys fees for the work.
2. Special Damages
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(f) requires that “items of special damage . . .
be specifically stated.” Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019(f). With regard to Stambaugh’s Count II demand for
special damages, courts have defined special damages as “those that are not the usual and
ordinary consequences of the wrong done but which depend on special circumstances.” Hooker
{00348090/1} 8
v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 880 A.2d 70, 77 (Commw. Ct. 2005). In application, Rule
1019(f) prevents special damages from being awarded “unless special facts giving rise to them
are averred.” Hooker, 880 A.2d at 70. Here, Stambaugh alleges no facts, special or otherwise, in
support of his demand for special damages and, for that reason, such damages are unavailable
and the demand must be stricken and/or dismissed.
* * *
Accordingly, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(2), the monetary
damages demands made in Counts I and II of Stambaugh’s amended complaint fail to conform to
law and/or rule of court and, for that reason, should be stricken and/or dismissed.
III. Conclusion
For all the foregoing reasons, the Shafers respectfully request that the Court dismiss this
action in its entirety on the basis of (1) the amended complaint’s failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted (see Section III.A, supra), and/or (2) the combined effect of the amended
{00348090/1} 9
complaint’s inability to support injunctive relief (see Section III.B, supra) and the insufficient
specificity with which it pleads a claim for damages (see Sections III.B and III.C, supra).
Alternatively, the Shafers respectfully request that the Court issue an Order:
{00348090/1} 10
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION – EQUITY
STEVEN STAMBAUGH,
Plaintiff,
No. 2008-SU-4141-07
versus
Defendants.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Eric Suter, hereby certify that on this 21st day of December 2009 I caused to be served
on the person(s) listed below, by first class mail postage prepaid at York, Pennsylvania, the
foregoing Memorandum of Law in Support of Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint:
By:
Eric Suter (No. 202017)
CGA Law Firm
135 North George St.
York, PA 17401
P: 717.848.4900
F: 717.843.9039
Attorney for the Shafers
{00348090/1}